Why Are Roads Called Roads if Bicycles Can Go On Them?

ceredigion

^^^
You ever considered emigrating

prowla

modsandmockers wrote: »

Somebody recently mentioned the Magna Carta, and I very much doubt that it prescribed a pecking order for highway users.

I have no idea when pavements were first provided for the convenience of pedestrians, but I daresay it was a long time after the Magna Carta. And it now seems to be universally accepted that pedestrians belong on the pavement and have no place on the carriageway except when crossing. And sometimes pedestrians are required to make a considerable diversion in order to find a safe and legal crossing point. If a pedestrian chooses to walk on a road which has no pavement or footpath, then there seems to be little doubt that the pedestrian is taking a considerable risk.

In the closing decades of the 20th Century, cycling as a means of personal transport was being gratefully phased out and replaced by the motor car, until the point was reached that, so long as it wasn’t too cold or wet, somebody worked out that biking to work could sometimes be better than driving.

We have now reached the point where it seems to be accepted that cyclists are in some way better people than non-cyclists, and should therefore be allowed to choose at will between riding on the road and riding on the pavement, and that the highway should be re-designed in order to satisfy their demands.

Until there is a dedicated network of CYCLEWAYS, to match MOTORWAYS, RAILWAYS, BUSWAYS and PAVEMENTS, then, imo, cyclists need to understand that they have no place to call their own, and they should behave accordingly.

I'm a car driver, cyclist, and pedestrian!

Norman_Castle

modsandmockers wrote: »

Somebody recently mentioned the Magna Carta, and I very much doubt that it prescribed a pecking order for highway users.

I have no idea when pavements were first provided for the convenience of pedestrians, but I daresay it was a long time after the Magna Carta. And it now seems to be universally accepted that pedestrians belong on the pavement and have no place on the carriageway except when crossing. And sometimes pedestrians are required to make a considerable diversion in order to find a safe and legal crossing point. If a pedestrian chooses to walk on a road which has no pavement or footpath, then there seems to be little doubt that the pedestrian is taking a considerable risk.

In the closing decades of the 20th Century, cycling as a means of personal transport was being gratefully phased out and replaced by the motor car, until the point was reached that, so long as it wasn’t too cold or wet, somebody worked out that biking to work could sometimes be better than driving.

We have now reached the point where it seems to be accepted that cyclists are in some way better people than non-cyclists, and should therefore be allowed to choose at will between riding on the road and riding on the pavement, and that the highway should be re-designed in order to satisfy their demands.

Until there is a dedicated network of CYCLEWAYS, to match MOTORWAYS, RAILWAYS, BUSWAYS and PAVEMENTS, then, imo, cyclists need to understand that they have no place to call their own, and they should behave accordingly.

Life's too short...............

cookie365

Oh god, is he trolling this thread now too?

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

Until there is a dedicated network of CYCLEWAYS, to match MOTORWAYS, RAILWAYS, BUSWAYS and PAVEMENTS, then, imo, cyclists need to understand that they have no place to call their own, and they should behave accordingly.

Since there is a dedicated network of motorways for drivers to call their own, they have no place at all on our roads, and should behave accordingly, giving priority to cyclists.

In the latter parts of the 20th century, stupidity was slowly being phased out as our education system improved. Then MSE was invented and somebody worked out that, sometimes, it was fun to be stupid.

We have now reached the point where it seems to be accepted that the vociferously stupid are somehow better than normal people... And that sad old bitter idiots have the right to post their petulant rants all over the place, instead of sticking to the PSYCHIATRIST'S COUCH where they belong.

On the other hand, it is almost amusing to see someone get so upset over their failures to integrate into society that they continually invent rambling incoherent arguments to pretend that their choice of transport makes them better than anyone else. It's laughable.

But, at the end of the day, it's a tragic waste of a life if this is the only way you know to have fun.

brat

^^^

I didn't want to waste more time on this idiot troll, but you have said exactly what I wanted to write. :T

PenguinJim

modsandmockers wrote: »

Until there is a dedicated network of CYCLEWAYS, to match MOTORWAYS, RAILWAYS, BUSWAYS and PAVEMENTS

Well, I did promise you a response in the last line of the OP, but I'm surprised to hear you say such things.

Forcing cars to exclusively use motorways and refuse to let them access normal roads?

Buses, too - forced to use bus lanes only?!

Converting every normal road into a "cycleway", forcing them to be the exclusive domain of the cyclist, with no access allowed to cars, motorbikes, buses, lorries, or pedestrians?!

I think your "solution" of converting our beloved network of car-friendly roads into a turgid rash of spandex and rust is absolutely unbelievable. You seem to think that the obvious health benefits, environmental benefits and financial benefits while decreasing traffic fatality rates by over 90% outweigh my right to a comfy seat while I stop-start my way through my daily commute.

Well let me tell you something. My hatred of the bicycle is not irrational. Naysayers may point to my reasoned speeches as being the natural result of my home situation (my wife left me for a bicycle), but I can assure you that my grounded perspective has not in any way been compromised by her savage betrayal, and that I am taking the stance of the intellectual when I appraise the negatives of the bicycle (sometimes they go on the pavements or inconvenience my driving for a few seconds a week) and decide that the logical course of action is for every bicycle in existence to be inhumanely destroyed through a protracted melting session.

This is not because I am too old and fat to be at all competitive in the use of a bicycle.

This is not because while cyclist speed is related to physical fitness and would leave me at a significant and embarrassing disadvantage, I can prove my manhood in my over-sized motor vehicle simply by pushing the pedal a bit too much.

This is not about me reaching a stage in my life where I realise I have almost no practical control over anything, and have desperately latched on to any kind of scapegoat in an attempt to claim some measure of self-worth, no matter how hollow or meaningless it is.

No. This is about logic. This is about bringing intellectual reasoning to our transit systems to get rid of those two-wheeled devils, and finally, after many centuries of hard work, make cars popular. Because there just aren't enough cars on the roads these days.

Enterprise_1701C

What I love is overtaking Porsches on my bike I was coming up the road in the cycle lane where there was no traffic jam, the traffic was jammed right back on the road as we were coming to a busy junction. Was just about to move past a Porsche and he must have seen me in his mirror, he reversed a little and then moved right over to the left to stop me overtaking him. I simply got off my bike, walked past him on the path, got back on right in front of his car and carried on

I have to admit I take great pleasure in getting my own back on such selfish drivers.

frisbeej

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

What I love is overtaking Porsches on my bike I was coming up the road in the cycle lane where there was no traffic jam, the traffic was jammed right back on the road as we were coming to a busy junction. Was just about to move past a Porsche and he must have seen me in his mirror, he reversed a little and then moved right over to the left to stop me overtaking him. I simply got off my bike, walked past him on the path, got back on right in front of his car and carried on

I have to admit I take great pleasure in getting my own back on such selfish drivers.

I think you could have squeezed through, Porsches have pretty tough paint and pedals barely scratch it.

armyknife

Might the guys trolling be some kind of cry for help* ?







* perhaps "Help me I've p'ed away much of my lifespan and now I'm doing it on the internet too" ?